Expandable Housing Welfare Society ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 March, 2022

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Expandable Housing Welfare Society ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 March, 2022

IN THE COURT OF
Dr. V.K. DAHIYA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI

Civil Suit no. 1916/2014

In the matter of:
Expandable Housing Welfare Society (the plaintiff)
Through its General Secretary
Sewarth, House no. 890,
PocketIII, Sector 19,
Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075

.....Plaintiff
Versus

1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, Delhi

2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi

3. Sh. Ajit Kar,
R/o Flat no. 1185, Pocket 3, Sector 19,
Dwarka, New Delhi

Also at : H. no. 99,
Satya Niketan, New Delhi
....Defendants

CS no. 1916/2014
Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.
Page no.1 of 55
Appearance:
(i) Sh. Rajesh Rai, Advocate Ld counsel for plaintiff
(ii) Sh. Amit Minocha, Advocate Ld counsel for the defendant.
(iii) Defendant no. 3 in person

Date of filing of the Suit : 17.03.2010
Date of transfer to this court : 03.02.2014
Date of final arguments : 04.03.2022
Date of judgment : 04.03.2022

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, DECLARATION AND
OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF

JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking permanent injunction, declaration and other consequential relief.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present application are like this :

(i) The plaintiff is the society running under the name and style of Expendable Housing Welfare Society (in short, referred to as the plaintiff) registered under the Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860 at Delhi having its registered office at Sewarth, House no.

890, Sector 19, Pocket3, Dwarka, New Delhi.

(ii) It is averred that plaintiff is the Welfare Society and Sh. Harender Mudgal, General Secretary, of plaintiff society through resolution dated 09.03.2010 passed by the governing committee of the plaintiff society is authorised to file the present suit.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.2 of 55

(iii) It is averred that defendant no. 1 constructed houses in the plaintiff, Narela and Bindapur in the year 1992 in the form of LIG and MIG houses and came up with the scheme of incremental allotment in the year 1994 which has been rejected by the general public. The same houses were, later on, renamed as Type A and Type B and defendant no. 1 came up with another scheme for public allotment in the year 1995 which was also rejected by the general public.

(iv) It is averred that defendant no. 1, in the year 1995 96 came up with another scheme for the same houses in Narela and Dwarka called Expendable Housing Scheme 1996 (in short, referred to as EHS1996) in order to sell 3500 houses which could not be sold in early schemes. It is averred that the highlights of the Expendable House Scheme1996 detailed in the brochure along with Annexure B1 to B11.

(v) It is averred that as per EHS1996, the house is offered under the scheme were independent dwelling units constructed on plots and apart from the ownership of the house, allottee of an expendable house gets absolute ownership of the land. Some houses have one room along with a kitchenette and a toilet cum bathroom while, in others, there are two or more rooms along with an independent kitchen and bathroom/toilet. The defendant, for the purpose of allotment, classified the houses under 2 types i.e Type A one room set and Type B 2 or more room sets.

(vi) It is averred that the expansion/construction of the houses were to be as per the details given in Annexure B1 to B11 of the brochure EHS1996 and an allottee who makes full payment of the house before the taking position will have the status of freehold owner.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.3 of 55

(vii) It is averred that the defendant no. 1 in the light of Annexure B1 to B11, appended to the Brochure 1996 provides the plan showing the area already constructed in the portion, where the additional construction shall be raised. In some pockets sample houses fully constructed existed to give the idea as to how the house will eventually look on completion of rest of permissible construction.

(viii) It is averred that the houses initially were constructed/expanded by the allottees as per the plan B1 to B11 of the Brochure 1996. Subsequently, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Eleviation allowed certain addition and alteration in the built up houses and various amendments were made in building bye laws, Master Plan of Delhi. The allottee/residents of EHS1996 were allowed relaxation for covering of rear courtyard, 900 mm vide projection at roof level in front, over and above the addition/alterations which were already under the policy and procedure for permission and regularisation of additions/alterations in DDA houses. Thereafter, the allottees/residents constructed/expanded the houses as per the amendments and extension granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Development and Poverty Alleviation.

(ix) It is averred that the houses under the aforesaid scheme were allotted to the residents of Pocket3, Sector19, Dwarka in the year 1996, who started constructing the houses, as per their convenience, as per building bye laws prevailing in Delhi at the time of their expansion/alteration of the same. Presently almost 80% of the house was allotted under the scheme EHS1996 are constructed as building bye laws and Master Plan Development 2021 (in short, MPD2021) applicable to the plotted houses.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.4 of 55

(x) It is averred that the officials of defendant no.1 regularly inspected the area and did not object the said expansion/constructions, whereby the residents balatantly violated the building bye laws and provisions of MPD2021, defendant no. 1 either demolished the unauthorised construction or compound the same if found within permissible limits.

(xi) It is averred that an allottee/resident of Khancha Type B (50 sq. mtrs. flat with small opening of 4 ft. and no ventilation other than the open sky) aggrieved, interalia, by the projections extended by his neighbour; and no specific plan provided by DDA for construction of Khancha houses, filed various suits, criminal complaints against the residents of Pocket3, Sector19, Dwarka New Delhi 75 in or around the year 20072008. The officials of defendant no. 1 started taking action and issuing notices even to the residents whose houses were as per the Master Plan and building bye laws and amended the maps of allottees/residents which were already sanctioned and deleted certain sanctions which are already granted so that the maps should be strictly as per the Annexure B1 to B11 of the EHS1996.

(xii) It is further averred that the defendant no. 2, in the meantime, was handed over the services of Pocket3, Sector19, Dwarka by defendant no. 1 through letter dated 23.12.2008 informing the allottees of the said houses that any action for violation of building bye laws is to be taken by defendant no. 2.

(xiii) It is further averred that the scheme EHS1996 was floated in the year 1996 and Annexure B1 to B11 of the brochure is the plan as per the building bye laws prevailing in the year 1996. The defendant no. 1, in order to save the rigours of the procedure of the sanction plan, duly approved a plan for future construction and if the building is constructed as per the plan provided in the CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.5 of 55 Annexure B1 to B11 of the brochure EHS1996, no separate sanction is required for building plan.

(xiv) The sanction/approval plan mentioned in Annexure B1 to B11 of the brochure of EHS1996 were as per the building bye laws prevailing in the year 1996, thereafter, the residents were allowed construction as per the various amendments of building bye laws as amended by various Gazette Notifications.

(xv) It is further averred that the residents of Pocket3, Sector19,, Dwarka has constructed 900 mm projection on both side of the houses and many residents had amalgamated two houses where the adjacent house/flat is owned by his/her relative. The projection on both sides of the flat included in the list of condemnable item as per amendment in the MPD2021 in terms of the said notification dated 12.08.2008.

(xvi) It is further averred that as per location of the houses, the aforesaid houses are of two types namely,

(i) L shaped house Type B (54 sq. mtr.) two side open,

(ii) L shape Tapered HousesType B (54 sq. mtrs.) Two side open

(iii) Khancha Houses Type B (54 sq. mtr. houses with small opening of 4 ft. for entrance and no ventilation,

(iv) Single side open Type B (54 sq. mtr. one side open rectangular flat,

(v) One sided Type A tapered flat (27 sq. mtr. one sided tappered flat,

(vi) Khancha houses (27 sq. mtrs houses with small opening of 4 ft for entrance with no ventilation,

(vii) L shaped tappered houses Type A (27sq. Mtr. two side open,

(viii) Single side open, Type A CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.6 of 55 (xvii) In terms of the layout of the affected area shown in different colours in the annexure A annexed with the plaint. Annexure B1 to B2 are only for the above said eight categories.

(xviii) It is further averred that the development of the plotted housing is governed as per Clause 4 & 4.4.3 of the MPD2021 and in the MPD2021 the floor area ratio is enhanced for all plotted houses categories.

(xix) It is further averred that the despite issuance of the gazette notification dated 07.02.2007 the defendant no. 1 issued notice to the allottees of scheme EHS1996, though the houses were as per existing plan provided in clause 4.4.3 of the MPD2021. The defendant no. 1 has further issued the notice to the residents on the other ground without any proper guidelines provided to the residents.

(xx) It is further averred that there is a confusion in the mind of the residents of Pocket3, Sector19, Dwarka whether the MPD2021 would be applicable on the plotted housing called EHS1996 or there are any other rules and conditions applicable to such houses. The various organisations and the plaintiff made numerous representation before the local leaders, defendant no. 1 and Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi but to no avail. The plaintiff filed RTI application seeking information, interalia on the building bye laws and law applicable to the residents/allottees of EHS1996. The defendant no.1 could not reply the query and all the information sought was directed to various wings of defendant no.1, however, no satisfactory reply to the queries was given by the defendant no.1. The defendant no. 1 has so far not expressly informed the allottees or their association whether MPD2021 is applicable on the houses allotted under EHS1996 scheme.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.7 of 55 (xxi) It is averred that Clause 4.4.3 of MPD2021 should have been declared applicable to the allottees of EHS1996 by the defendant and thus might have cleared any confusion on the said issue. The allottees who have constructed the house as per the amended building bye laws are living in the fear due to the aforesaid act of defendant no. 1.

(xxii) It is further averred that the exercises done for the MPD2021 shows that there is a need for the redevelopment and densification of the existing urban areas and city and this aspect is a major component of the new masterplan, which calls for a comprehensive redevelopment strategy for accommodating the larger population, strengthening of infrastructure facilities accompanied by creation of more spaces at the local level by undertaking measures for the redevelopment of the congested areas.

(xxiii) It is further averred that the land policy in MPD2021 is based on the optimum utilisation of availability of limited sources, both public and private in land assembly, development and housing. The MPD2021 provides for enhancement of the ground coverage, FAR and height for all categories of the residential plots. The scope for development of urban extension on the large scale is restricted to limitations of buildable/urbanising the land in Delhi, therefore, the option for redevelopment through a process of reorganisation and utilisation of the land already developed is major element of overall city development plan.

(xxiv) It is further averred that the option of redevelopment, through a process of reorganisation and utilisation of the land already developed is major element for overall city development plan a redevelopment strategy for accommodating more population in planned manner is to be taken up on priority in all zones for CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.8 of 55 efficient and optimum utilisation of the urban existing land, both in planned and unplanned areas. This would have to be based on the provision of infrastructure i.e. water supply, sewerage, road network, open spaces and the essential resources infrastructure.

(xxv) It is further averred that in order to encourage the growth of impulse for regeneration in the target development areas, the possible incentives and modalities recommended includes grant of planning permission at the scheme level with permission to reorganise/pull properties for planning purposes, provision of social infrastructure through transfer at development rights or accommodation reservation and a reduced space standards for unplanned areas, enhanced FAR for specified redevelopment areas and application of flexible concept of mixed used zone in special areas as well as village on the scheme basis. The allottee/resident of expandable housing allotted under EHS1996 are also entitled to such relaxation and review plan provided under the EHS1996 brochure as Annexure B1 to B11 is of utmost importance. The floor area ratio of the allottee/residents of Pocket3 Sector19, Dwarka, New Delhi may be enhanced in consonance with the main objective of MPD2021. The plaintiff issued statutory notice dated 19.07.2009 to the defendants to declare the applicability of MPD2021 amended to the expendable housing allottee under EHS1996 which was duly received by the defendants, however, defendants failed to file the reply therefore, the present suit has been filed.

3. The defendant was served with summons for settlement of issues and defendant no. 1 filed written statement and, inter alia, submitted that the present suit has been filed just to conceal his own wrongs by plaintiff in as much as plaintiff without taking prior permission CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.9 of 55 from the competent authority have constructed houses after demolishing the old structure for which the notice under section 30(1) and 31(a) for sealing and demolition under DDA act has already been issued by defendant no. 1. The suit is liable to be dismissed only on the ground that allottees cannot construct more than two and half storey as per the scheme and additional alteration is not provided in the scheme. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and the plaint is liable to be rejected. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and guilty of suppressing the material facts.

4. It is submitted that this scheme was floated by DDA in the year 1992 and, thereafter, in the year 19951996, was never rejected by the general public, however, it is submitted that the EHS flats were constructed by the defendant no. 1 with 1½ storey along with mumty with the condition that the allottee can extend 2½ storey of the said plot as per the drawing issued by defendant no. 1, at the time of allotment, the allottees are not allowed to construct more than 2½ storeys. The scheme for alteration/addition is not implemented in this scheme as per policy and procedure for addition/alteration in DDA flats approved by the Ministry of Urban Development. The construction of the EHS flats is not done by the occupants as per the building bye laws, however, the occupants/allottees of the EHS houses demolished the entire DDA flats and reconstructed the ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with mumty without the sanction of plan with competent authority and such construction is totally unauthorised for which the notice aforementioned has been issued under the Act.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.10 of 55

5. It is further submitted that the allottee/occupants had constructed these houses up to four floors with the roof projection in public land after demolishing the original structure constructed by DDA without following the sanction of any plan from defendant no. 1, however, the MPD2021 did not permit to any allottee to demolish the entire DDA flat and reconstruction of four storeyed flat without any sanction plan from defendant no. 1. It is prayed that the suit deserves to be dismissed

6. The defendant no. 3 also filed the written statement and, inter alia, submitted that the entire colony is consisted of several flats constructed by DDA out of which some are known expandable and some of them are nonexpandable and these flats have been sold arbitrarily by DDA in part by several schemes in different years and the plaintiff were the members who were either the allottee or purchased from the allottee belonging to one of the scheme of the DDA of 1996. The plaintiff praying for some relief for itself telling falsely that it is representing the residents of the entire colony, fraudulently, to get a favourable judgment. But, if any, of the reliefs is granted it shall be detrimental to the rights of neighbouring residents including defendant no. 3. The flats were sold under different schemes arbitrarily. The house no. 1185 of colony was allotted to defendant no. 3 in 2004 festival scheme and house no. 1186 and 1187 of the plaintiff were allotted in the 1991 scheme to some other persons from whom the wife of plaintiff had purchased the same. Many people of the colony will be affected, if any decision, is taken by this court without issuing notice to them for CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.11 of 55 objection/suggestion as per the principle of natural justice. The authenticity of the society by its bye laws purpose of its formation is doubtful. The bye laws has not been placed in the court file. The address of the society is also found false as per the report of the postal authorities.

7. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is trying maliciously to drag this court to declare plaintiff illegal character as simplicitor under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in contradiction to Section 35 of the said Act. The suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law as it is not a declaratory suit for permanent injunction and other consequential relief, but the plaintiff but using the nomenclature of such preventive relief only wanted a consequential relief, therefore, the suit is absolutely untenable and deserves to be dismissed at the very outset.

8. It is further submitted that plaintiff neither having title nor having any legal character which is denied by one and by cleverly drafting the plaint, the plaintiff want to seek declaratory decree. The plaintiff dishonestly seeks to play a positive fraud upon the court and legal fraud upon defendant no. 3 as well as the other residents of the colony. Law is a rule of right and whatever is contrary to the right is an injury and in other words, law is a science of what is just. The present suit needs to be dismissed by this court.

9. It is further submitted that MPD2021 needs extensive modification, which the central government proposed to make in master CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.12 of 55 plan for Delhi for growing new dimensions and development which was published in the Gazette Notification in March 2005 by DDA inviting objections as required by Section 3 and Section 11A of the DDA act, 1957 within 90 days from the said notice published in the newspaper on 08.04.2005.

10. It is further submitted that about 7000 objection/suggestions came from the individuals, interested public, RWA, legal bodies, local bodies, government departments in favour of the citizens for representation and representatives of the governments of NCT and 611 persons/organisations were given personal hearing. The board of inquiry set up by DDA extensively modified the MPD2021 as per demand and thus all universally approved and assisted the formulation and declaration of the MPD2021. The notification of the same was made on 07.02.2007 in the Gazette of India, which is already declared for all the residents of Delhi/Central Government, which has higher authority over DDA. Therefore, the policy declared through MPD2021 cannot be declared illegal by this court.

11. It is further submitted that for the development of the National capital Territory, it has been envisaged in the master plan and policy guidelines for the prospective period up to 2021 so that the plan be reviewed every five years to keep pace with the changing requirements of the society and the success of master plan depends on conversion of the policies and strategies outlined in time bound development and action plans, periodic reviews and close monitoring, CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.13 of 55 besides the people's will and willingness to adhere to the discipline in the use of land, roads public space and infrastructure, and any issue arising from interpretation of the provision of MPD2021 will be settled by DDA in consultation, if required, with the central government and such regulation in the form of MPD clarified that the MPD is subject to change, time and again, and is not permanent.

12. It is further averred that DDA for the rejuvenation, reconstruction and development of new area in the city and renovating the dilapidated and recycling of the old area on public/private partnership has to consult with public, local bodies, central government, legal bodies, service and transport agencies, state governments, public representatives and it cannot alone act on the basis of will, smile of a particular group of people or body of people, and court is not bound to give a declaration for a plan, which itself is not permanent and apt to change for modification in future, time and again. Therefore, a declaratory consequential relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted by the court.

13. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has admitted in para 8, 14a and 21 of the plaint that the people/allottee did development like amalgamation, alteration, side projection on 900 mm as per amendment in MPD2021 suppressing the fact about the people who are the allottees, and on which date and what major development did carry out. The Gazette Notification of 12.08.2018 and its applicability to area, objection, suggestion thereto FAR, height, precaution to structural CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.14 of 55 safety, fire clearance, airport authority clearance etc. have not been brought before this court. This act is a cognizable offence as per the terms of section 29 of the Act, disobeying the direction/notifications of DDA, which has been given the authority to control/monitor the directions in MPD2021.

14. It is further submitted that the plaintiff admitted in para 9 of the plaint that there is 20% illegal construction and 80% without permission developments and both category of 100% construction is a cognizable offence under the Act. The plaintiff in para no. 19 of the plaint has submitted that no satisfactory answer was given to plaintiff in terms of the RTI application moved by plaintiff, however, the exact methodology has been given in the building bye laws as per the section 13 and 57 of the Act, and even the procedure and permission and readressal for grievances are also available on DDA website, and instructions have also been given that which branch of DDA and which employee is to be contacted.

15. It is further submitted that for seeking any development permission from DDA under Section 30 of the Act is to be taken as per the development defined under Section 2 of the Act, which is to be directed by the rules and regulations of the central government by the authorities, apart from the special law and order under the National capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, Delhi Urban Shelter Development Act. If the permission is refused, the ground of refusal is to be given by the authority under section 13 of the Act against CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.15 of 55 which the applicant has a right to file an appeal before the appellate tribunal under section 31C of the Act, and on dissatisfaction with the order, if any, passed by the appellate tribunal, the next resort is appeal before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi under Section 31D of the Act, thereafter, proceedings be taken before Hon'ble High Court. However, the plaintiff illegally has sought relief, which this court is not competent to grant.

16. It is further submitted that all the addition/alterations and additional coverage will be governed by five basic principles i.e. there is no encroachment in public land, structural stability of the building is to be ensured, light and ventilation of the habitable rooms is to be ensured as per the building bye laws, there is no infringement over the rights, the service elements such as manhole, rainwater fitting, sanitary fittings etc. are not disturbed and are exposed for periodical inspection and maintenance. Permission from MCD of permitted addition and alterations in DDA land must be adhered to as per the prescribed norms, terms and procedure.

17. It is further submitted that the plaintiff admitted that they did development and erection without the permission and so they did a cognizable offence by raising illegal constructions by encroaching upon the public land and amalgamation of two plots/flats thereon without structural safety and without file clearance without adhering to the verifications by DDA about their FAR, height, addition alterations coverage etc. The plaintiff has placed on record no details, therefore, CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.16 of 55 the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Plaintiff has infringed the rights of the neighbours in as much as light and ventilation is the primary object for health and sanitation which plaintiff forget to provide to the neighbours by raising unauthorised and illegal addition/alterations without conforming to the structural safety.

18. It is further submitted that the FAR is not only to be maintained by the individual or group but also by DDA itself and any addition to FAR/ or building violates the ratio of constructed land and open place in DDA plan to which DDA is not only answerable to the central government but also answerable to the public at large.

19. It is further submitted that the permission of DDA is mandatory for additional coverage, structural changes and change in service line, which will effect and infringe the light of other people and public land thus may be grabbed by illegal and unauthorised constructions in violation of the provisions, rules and regulations passed by DDA.

20. It is further submitted that MPD2021 is neither a right of the public nor a legal character to the public and it is simply a proposal for the plan and strategies still immature under the supervision, control and monitoring of many groups and authorities and not only by DDA itself. The MPD2021 as per clause 4.4.3(xvii) clearly envisaged that encroachment in any manner shall be removed for permitted regularisation or an additional construction. The owners/occupiers shall CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.17 of 55 take structural safety certificate, fire clearance within a prescribed period of time notified by the central government and any additions, coverage, F AR height as permitted for specific colonies on the basis of approval of the central government and not of DDA, therefore, any concession made without permission, suppressing FAR and height is to be monitored and controlled by DDA and if anything is found wrong, DDA shall be answerable to the central government. Therefore, the permission under section 13 of the act is mandatory which plaintiff has not taken and fraudulently want the court to issue a declaration in the form of a permanent injunction.

21. It is further submitted that the formulation of building bye laws has already been made as per the directions of MPD2021 admitted by the plaintiff in para no. 20 of the plaint and any further amendment in the building bye laws will be made under section 57 of the act on the basis of the law and rules made by the central government so the declaration cannot be given in as much as the court cannot give such an order for the offenders who want the law to be changed as per their will. The consequential relief of development of amalgamation of plot wanted as per Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of the Housing Estate) Regulations, 1968 (in short, the said Regulations) is not derivable from the main declaration as prayed for. The consequential relief of coverage of the area in front of Khancha Flat owners and their amalgamation with adjoining houses is not derivable from declaration. The suit is hit by order I rule 8 as the permission of the court has not been taken by the CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.18 of 55 plaintiff in as much as the plaintiff has demanded relief for all the residents of pocket 3, sector 19, Dwarka. Therefore, for noncompliance of order I rule 8 CPC will automatically lead to the dismissal of the present suit. The suit deserves to be dismissed.

22. Replication to the written statement has been filed reaffirming and reasserting the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint.

23. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 10.08.2010, following issues are framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed ?

OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed in Clause B of the prayer clause? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed in Clause C of the prayer clause ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed in Clause D of the prayer clause? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed in Clause E of the prayer clause? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed in Clause F of the prayer clause? OPP

7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed ? OPP

8. relief

24. In support its case, Sh. Harender Mudgal has appeared as PW1 and testified through his evidence in affidavit Ex.PW1/A and CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.19 of 55 reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied on the following documents :

1. Copy of the resolution is Ex. PW1/1,

2. Copy of the registration certificate is Ex. PW1/2,

3. Brochure of EHS1995 is Ex. PW1/3,

4. Brochure of EHS1996 is Ex. PW1/4,

5. Copy of the demolition notice is Ex. PW1/5,

6. Copy of the appeal/letter by the resident to defendant no. 1 is Ex.

PW1/6,

7. Copy of the letter dated 23.12.2008 is Ex. PW1/7,

8. Layout of the eight categories is Ex. PW1/8,

9. Copy of the application and letters of RWA and counsel for plaintiff is Ex. PW1/9,

10. Copy of the bye laws housing addition/alteration is Ex. PW1/10

11. Copy of the terms and conditions os the amagamation of the shops is Ex. PW1/11,

12. Copy of the regulations of DDA, Management and Disposal of Housing Estates Regulations is Ex. PW1/12,

13. Copy of notification dated 23.07.1998 is Ex. PW1/13,

14. Copy of the demolition notice is Ex. PW1/14,

15. Copy of the amendment in the MPD21 is Ex. PW1/15,

16. Copy of the notices along with proof of dispatch is Ex. PW1/16,

25. Plaintiff has also examined one Sh. Sukhdev Raj Jaiswal, Deputy Director (Architect) of DDA as PW2 The drawings of the EHS flat is ex. PW2/1. Sh. B.S. Rana, UDC R&D system, Vikas Sadan is also examined as PW3 who has proved on record the documents Ex. PW1/16. Sh. S.K. Chaudhary, Asst. Director, Master plan has been examined as PW4 who has deposed that the document Ex. PW1/15 has been issued by Ministry of Urban Development and the same is applicable to Delhi. Dr. K. Srirangam Deputy Director (Planning) has been examined as PW5. Sh. Shivbaksh, Asst./ Director, EHS, DDA has CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.20 of 55 been examined as PW6 who has proved the documents ex. PW1/3 & Ex. PW1/4. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording of defendants evidence.

26. In order to substantiate its case Sh. Shiv Baksh has been examined as DW1, Sh. D.B. Sharma, has been examined as Ex. DW2, and thereafter the evidence on behalf of defendant no. 1 was closed.

27. Defendant no. 3 Sh. Ajit kar has also examined himself as DW3 and has relied on the following documents :

i. Complaint of Khancha building owners is Mark DW3/1, ii. Envelope along with letter is Ex. DW3/2, iii. Specific part of Master Plan 2021 is Ex. DW3/3, iv. Specific extract of Delhi Building bye laws is Ex. DW3/4 v. Specific extract of general Development Control Regulations as per MPD2021 is Ex. DW3/5 vi. Extract of Delhi laws (Special Provisions) Act 2006 is Ex. DW3/6, vii. Extract of NCT of Delhi (Special Provisions) Bill 2011 is Ex.

DW3/7, viii. Writ petition (C) no. 4699/2016 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is Mark DW3/XA, ix. Counter affidavit of defendant no. 1 in Writ petition (C) no.

4699/2016 Mark DW3/XB x. Application of the plaintiff society dated 01.10.2018 is Mark DW3/XC xi. Notice given to the resident of the Society is E. DW3/XD xii. RTI application along with reply to the postal department is Ex.

DW3/XE xiii. Rejected plan for unauthorised and illegal erection in H. no. 1186 of the society is Ex. DWE3/XBX xiv. Original evidence by way of affidavit is Ex. DW3/XK CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.21 of 55 Thereafter, he did not appeared for his further cross examination and he was proceeded exparte. Thereafter, defendants evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.

28. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record.

29. My issue wise findings are as under : Issue no. 1 to 7 These issues are overlapping each other and are disposed off by this common order. The burden to prove these issues is on plaintiff and plaintiff through PW1 has testified that scheme floated by the DDA in the form of LIG/MIG in Dwarka Sub City, Narela and Bindapur was rejected by the public at large, thereafter, DDA launched another scheme for public allotment in year 1995 by renaming the said houses as Type A and Type B which was also rejected by the public in terms of the brochure EHS1995 (Ex. PW1/3). However, the EHS1996 for selling 3500 houses by DDA/defendant no. 1 received overwhelming response from the public and defendant no. 1 as per the brochure of EHS1995 floated two types of houses, Type A One room set and Type B 2 or more room sets, whose expansion and construction was detailed in Annexure B1 to B11 of the brochure EHS1996 (Ex. PW1/4). The allottees who make the full payment for the allotted houses for taking possession will have the status of the free hold owner. The plan showing the already constructed flat and the area where the CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.22 of 55 additional construction shall be raised were detailed in Annexure B1 to B11 of the EHS1996 (Ex. PW1/4).

30. PW1 further testified that the houses/flats in the vicinity were constructed and expanded by the allottees as per plan detailed in Annexure B1 to B11 of EHS1996 and the houses/flats were constructed by the allottees as per the plan. However, subsequently the Government of India, Ministry of Urban development and poverty alleviation allowed certain additions and alterations in built up houses by various amendments made in the building bye laws, master plan of Delhi. The allottees of EHS1996 were allowed relaxation for covering of rear courtyard, 900 mm. wide projection at roof level in front, over and above the additions/alterations, which were already under the policy and procedure for permission and regulations of addition/alterations in the DDA houses. Thereafter, the allottees constructed/amended the houses as per the extension granted by Government of India, Ministry of Urban development and poverty alleviation. The allottees of the said houses started constructing the house as per their convenience and as per the building bye laws prevailing in Delhi at the time of the expansion/construction of the houses and presently 80% of the houses allotted under the scheme EHS1996 are constructed as per the building bye laws and MPD2021 applicable to the plotted houses. However, the defendant no. 1/DDA neither demolished the unauthorised construction or compounded the same which are found violating the building bye laws and provisions of the MPD2021.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.23 of 55

31. PW1 further testified that the allottee/residents of Khancha Type B aggrieved by the projection extended by the neighborers filed various suits, criminal complaints against the residents of the plaintiff, therefore, officials of defendant feeling any action from the court, started issuing notice to the residents whose houses were as per MPD2021; and as per the building bye laws and amended the sanction plan of such allottees, and deleted certain sanctions, which were already granted so that the maps could be strictly as per Annexure B1 to B11 provided for in the brochure of EHS1996 in terms of Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6.

32. PW1 further testified that DDA in order to make the scheme more attractive approved the plan for future construction, and for the building constructed as per the plan provided in Annexure B1 to B11 of the brochure EHS1996, and no separate sanction is required for building plan. The sanction/approved plan as detailed in brochure EHS 1996 was as per the building plan prevailing in the year 1996 and, thereafter, residents were allowed to construct their houses as per the various amendments of building bye laws as amended through various gazette notifications. The alteration/projections constructed on both sides of the flats is included in the list of condemnable items as per the amendment in MPD2021 through the Gazette Notification. The defendant no. 1 has provided plan Annexure B1 to B11 only for 2 of the 8 categories of the flats detailed in the foregoing para of the plaint.

33. PW1 further testified that the development of plotted houses was carved out as per Clause 4.4.3 of the MPD2021 in terms of CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.24 of 55 Gazette Notification dated 07.02.2007. But despite the issuance of the gazette notification dated 07.02.2007, the defendant no. 1 issued several notices to the allottees of the scheme EHS1996, though the houses were existing as per the MPD2021. There is a confusion in the mind of the resident of plaintiff as to which rules and regulation is applicable to the EHS Scheme1996, which doubt could not be removed by the defendant no.1 through reply filed in response to the application moved by the plaintiff under RTI Act. The allottee of the EHS1996 scheme are having confusion in their mind as to which amended building bye laws is applicable to them in terms of document Ex. PW1/10 to Ex. PW 1/15.

34. PW1 in crossexamination admitted that as per the specification made by DDA, the allottee can make the additions/alterations to his flat as per his need and affordability and each flat owner was entitled to construct 2½ floors. The construction on the plot allotted to plaintiff was as per the voucher Ex. PW1/4. Ex. PW1/10 is the document according to which Government of India and Ministry of Urban development allowed the allottees of the flat to carry out addition/alterations in the residential flats. A person who has been allotted a house under the expandable housing scheme is the owner of the land beneath the house as he had paid the premium for the same which is not in the case of the other flats. An allottee under the EHS is entitled to demolish the structure provided by DDA and to construct a fresh structure and last para under the second heading on page no. 2 of CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.25 of 55 Ex. PW 1/10 shows that the same is applicable to singlestorey structure.

35. PW1 further testified that plaintiff has not taken any permission from DDA before demolishing the structure provided by DDA. The flat owners of the EHS have constructed 2½ stories or in some cases three stories as per MPD2021. The plaintiff has received the demolition notice Ex. PW1/14 and the plaintiff has not filed any appeal against the said demolition order. He admitted that the demolition of the old structure as provided by DDA has been demolished without seeking due permission from DDA. DDA has only regularised 2½ stories constructed by the flat owners. The house of plaintiff is three storied and he has applied for requisite permission only after construction of the 3 floors and permission was, thereafter, granted to him only for construction of 2½ stories and remaining half storey, which has not been permitted, is still in existence, and he has also received a demolition notice and he has not filed any appeal against the said order.

36. PW2 Sukhjdev Raj Jaiswal, Architect, HUPW, DDA testified that he is not aware about the fact that whether the expandable houses are existed in Delhi. His department is only dealing with designing the incremental flats and in such flats ground floor is prepared by DDA and some additional space on the first floor is to be constructed by the allottee. The incremental and expandable houses are different in senses that different allotment conditions are applicable to those and he is not CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.26 of 55 aware as to what is the specific differences in the allotment conditions in this regard. He admitted the following facts :

i. EHS flat designed by his department in Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi in the year 1992, which were designed as per the then existing building bye laws and regulations ii. The building bye laws applicable to the expandable flats has now been revised. The gazette notification dated 07.02.2007 and Ex. PW1/10 is not applicable to the EHS flats in the dispute, otherwise, it is applicable only to the residential plots iii. It is a policy matter of housing department whether the department can allow the allottee of the EHS flat to completely demolish the structure constructed by DDA iv. EHS flats are completely constructed except one room/some extension thereof and the said flats are habitable and in case of plots, it is a vacant plot without any construction.

v. He has proved the drawing of EHS flats, sector 19, pocket 3, Dwarka through Ex. PW2/1 which is the layout plan of the ground floor of the said flats vi. The plan Ex. PW2/1 is in an approved plan and, therefore, it is to be assumed that the said plan provides for earthquake or any other natural calamities.

37. PW4 Sh. S.L. Chaudhary, Assistant director, (Master Plan) testified that, MPD2021 is not applicable to the EHS as the same is provided/allotted by the housing department. He admitted the following facts:

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.27 of 55 i. he admitted that the MPD2021 is still in operation and planning of DDA will be as per the said plan ii. Ex. PW1/15 has been issued by Ministry of Urban development and not by DDA iii. the notification has not been issued on recommendation of DDA and MPD2021 is applicable to entire Delhi.

38. PW5 Dr. K.C Rangan Deputy Director(Planning) DDA, has testified that his department has not prepared the brochure and scheme of EHS 19951996 and this was done by housing and architect Department of DDA in terms of letter Ex. PW5/A and on being confronted with the statement of PW2, from the office of Architecture Department, who has deposed that said department has not prepared the brochure, PW5 admitted that housing department of DDA would have prepared brochure.

39. PW6 Shiv Baksh, Assistant Director, EHS, DDA has testified that the brochure Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 were prepared by his department. He admitted the following facts :

i. Maps Annexure B1 to B11 enclosed in Ex. PW1/4 have been prepared by his department whose job is to allot flats.

ii. The brochure is to be prepared by his department and the drawing of the same was supplied by the planning department of DDA iii. Housing scheme EHS was floated in terms of the DDA Act 1957 CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.28 of 55 iv. The flats have been constructed as per the building bye laws but he is not aware as per which building bye laws those flats have been constructed and the MPD2021 is not applicable to the flats v. He did not know under which rules and regulation excluded applicability of MPD2021 vi. MPD2021 is applicable to the schemes which have been floated by DDA after coming into force of the MPD2021 vii. he is not aware as to whether MPD2021 is applicable to the plots which were allotted by DDA before coming into force of this Act. He is not aware as to whether MPD2021 is applicable to freehold flats.

viii. He admitted that Annexure P7 show that the flat can be constructed upto second floor.

ix. He did not know what could be the reason for approving different plans for different properties under the same scheme and no construction can be made in the flat in addition to the structure already shown in Annexure B1 to B11 of Ex. PW1/4.

x. the land beneath the expandable housing belongs to the allottee is the value of the land is taken solely from the allottee, though in case of the allotment of the flat, the value of the land beneath the flat is equally payable by all the flat owners as per their shares.

xi. The flats in dispute were allotted under the said Regulations and as per the said Regulations there is a scheme for amalgamation of two units allotted on fulfilment of certain conditions before the said amalgamation can be allowed but he is not aware about the said conditions.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.29 of 55 xii. He is not aware whether the policy for expandable housing is different from the flats xiii. No permission has ever been given for demolition of the entire structure provided by DDA under the EHS.

xiv. The plaintiff can make 2½ stories in the expandable houses given to them as per Annexure B1 to B11 annexed with brochure Ex. PW1/4.

xv. He admitted that in Ex. PW1/4 at page no. 1 there is a photograph of expandable houses and there is a gate shown and this gate is a front portion of the house.

xvi. He admitted that if the expandable flat is constructed in contravention of the plan provided in brochure annexure B1 to B11 of Ex. PW1/4, the damages control team demolish the said portion.

xvii. He did not know as to whether the additional coverage of front and rear courtyard for which the land premium has already been paid, the authority further charged Rs. 475/ per square mtr. per floor on such coverage.

40. The defendant, to controvert the case of plaintiff led evidence of Sh. Shiv Baksh DW1/PW6 who has already deposed as PW6 and reiterated the contents of the written statement, which are not reproduced for the sake of brevity, and, interalia, testified that the allottees of the EHS houses demolished the entire DDA flats and reconstructed ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with mumty without the sanction plan from the competent authority and such construction is totally unauthorised for which notice under section 30 (1) CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.30 of 55 and 31 (a) for sealing and demolition under DDA Act has been issued by DDA. MPD2021 did not apply to any allottee to EHS flats. The entire allottee have reconstructed fourstories flat without any sanction plan from DDA.

41. In cross examination DW1 has admitted the following facts:

i. the demolition notice is issued by the enforcement department and not by his department and he has never been employed in the enforcement department ii. the alteration and construction of the flat and plots is governed by the building bye laws but he did not know the building bye laws applicable to the said plots/flats.

iii. he did not know which building bye laws governed the construction and addition/alteration of expandable housing flats.

iv. He admitted that he is not aware whether the expandable housing flats can be completely demolished and reconstructed v. That the expandable flats of the similar types is situated in pocket 3, sector 19, Dwarka are reconstructed as per MPD2021 vi. DDA did not have any norms to sanction the construction of the expandable housing flats

42. Sh. D.B. Sharma, Deputy Director(Enforcement) has been examined as DW2 and testified through his affidavit by way of evidence, and, interalia, testified that the allottee cannot construct more than two stories as per the EHS scheme 1996. However, some of the allottees of CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.31 of 55 the EHS flats demolish the entire DDA structure and constructed three floor with mumty without any sanction from any competent authority and the notice has been given for demolition. In crossexamination he has admitted the following facts:

i. That expandable housing is allotted under EHS1986 have been addressed by him as flats somewhere and houses at some other places in his affidavit ii. he admitted that there is a difference between flat and plot and houses allotted under the EHS1996 were flats iii. the land beneath the house allotted under the EHS1996 scheme is in the exclusive ownership of the allottee.

iv. He admitted that if there is one owner, the land belonged to one allottee and if there are two or more than two allottees, all the allottees have proportionate share in the land beneath the multistoried flat v. he admitted that the multistoried flat cannot be demolished and reconstructed by the allottee vi. he admitted that in case of singlestorey flats, the flats can be demolished by the allottee and reconstructed but only as per the plan and duly sanctioned by the competent authority and in the EHS flats the allottee is only one.

vii. That as per the EHS scheme only singlestorey was constructed by DDA and further one floor was constructed by the allottee as per the plan provided by DDA as per the allotment.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.32 of 55 viii. The terms and conditions of the flat allotted in the year 1995 are in the brochure provided to the allottee in the year 1996.

ix. All the terms and conditions and sanction plan provided by the brochure Ex. DW1/4 in respect of the flat allotted under the EHS1996 and as per sanction plan provided in Ex. PW1/4, DDA has constructed singlestorey and, in few areas, one and half storey structure.

x. Ex. PW1/4 is only a guideline bye laws containing terms and conditions that is applicable on the flats under EHS1996 in pocket 3, sector 19, Dwarka xi. he admitted that Ex. PW1/4 is not available at counter for sale to the occupant of the flats allotted under the EHS1996 as the same was already supplied to the original allottee at the time of applying for allotment.

xii. There is no other bye laws, guidelines, terms and conditions other than provided in Ex. PW1/4 which are applicable to the allottee of flat under EHS 19951996 situated in pocket 3, sector 19, Dwarka.

xiii. The layout plan Ex. PW1/8 is correct if it is as per the layout plan of DDA. The flats are of 8 categories as provided in the layout plan. The layout plan in Ex. PW1/4 is provided only for one category of flats allotted in pocket 3, sector 19, Dwarka i.e. Category 7 in Ex. PW1/8.

xiv. There is no plan other than provided in Ex. PW1/4, therefore, there is no sanction of any plan xv. He is not aware if any plan regarding the coverage of front or rear courtyard of the flats allotted under the EHS 19951996 is sanctioned by DDA.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.33 of 55 xvi. All the sanctions pertaining to the construction, demolition, addition or alteration in the EHS 19951996 is done by his department only. The raising of protrusion is not permissible as per the rules and policies and as per the policy/procedure booklet of DDA housing for addition and alterations of DDA flats, certain things are specified which are permissible and the rest of the addition/alterations automatically becomes unauthorised and illegal.

xvii. He did not know as to when this policy/procedure and booklet of permissible additions /alterations were being issued by DDA as the same did not relate to his department xviii. He admitted that it is not permissible as per the rules and policies of the DDA for the allottee to demolish the flat and reconstruct the same. The reconstruction of the flat is not allowed at all.

ix. As per the EHS1996 a specific plan was supplied to the allottee along with the allotment letter mentioning therein the permissible expansion of the flat.

43. The ld. counsel for plaintiff during course of arguments, has raised the following contentions namely i. That directions may be issued to the defendant to formulate building bye laws for the EHS flats and till the formulation of bye laws, directions may be issued by way of permanent injunction to defendant restraining them from demolishing the expandable flats or declare the prevailing building bye laws and clause 4.4.3 of MPD2021 is applicable to expandable houses.

ii. The expendable housing (EHS) was planned in the early 90's and promoted and disposed of in the year 199596 in accordance with the Delhi Building bye laws1993 and MPD2001, and in general pllotted CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.34 of 55 housing, allottees were allowed to construct 2½ stories as per the prevailing building bye laws for the plots in terms of Ex PW1/13.

iii. At present the houses are regulated as per the said regulation in terms of Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 i.e flats of EHS1996 which are having the following which are having the following features :

a. the expandable houses are the plots, therefore, the allottees started construction of the 2nd floor, however, certain irregularities surfaced regarding coverage of open area and balconies to be raised for the structural safety and security from intruders, but, DDA through letter dated 13.12.2002 granted permission to expandable houses allowing coverage of the rear courtyard and 900 MM wide projection at roof level and granted permission for raising 2 ½ stories as per the prevailing MPD on that day, which allowed 2½ story construction for the general plotted house in Delhi.

b. The singlestorey structure of flats made under EHS by DDA was not up to the mark, therefore, DDA permitted removal of earlier structure in respect of singlestorey builtup flats subject to satisfaction of the building bye laws with the prior approval of the authority in terms of Ex. PW1/13.

c. The DDA despite its best efforts made by the plaintiff, even under RTI applications failed to respond sanction the building plan as per the building bye laws MPD 2021 who will sanction as to the alteration/additions made in the EHS flats/houses.

d. Even DDA failed to appoint or state that who will be the authority to grant permission for raising such construction/alterations in the flat allotted under EHS and further as to whether building bye laws of 1993 are applicable at the time of planning of EHS flats or the current bye laws of MPD2021 is applicable.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.35 of 55 e. The fact that expandable house is a plot, can be inferred from the fact that DDA allowed the demolition of these flats other than expanding the constructions and raising fresh construction thereof in terms of Ex. PW1/10. Therefore, once the demolition/reconstruction is allowed, there is no need for the departments sanction for regularisation of the construction.

f. The DDA has not formulated any building bye laws for EHS flats and apply the policy and procedure of multistoried DDA flats for approval of sanction plan. Now DDA has stopped functioning its plan on account of various ambiguities surfaced during the passage of time.

44. PW6 denied that the scheme for addition/alteration is not implemented in this scheme as per the policy and procedure for addition/alteration of DDA flats approved by the Ministry of Urban development. Whereas, joint director, DDA through letter dated 23.12.2008 has stated that DDA has given sanction in respect of flat No. 1186 only, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka, strictly as per the policy and procedure and permission for DDA flats.

45. The DDA has no power to recover charges/cost of coverage of the rear and front courtyard of the EHS flats @ ₹ 450 per square mtrs. and DDA till date has no policy for EHS flats and they are applying the rules and regulations of DDA flats by charging this amount of ₹ 50 per square mtr.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.36 of 55

46. The DDA neither pleaded nor proved as to which local competent authority is to approve the plan of construction when the earlier structure is removed in the EHS flats and the fresh construction is to be started from zero level in as much as PW 7 has admitted that PW1/10 provides for removal of earlier structure and the reconstruction of the house can be done with due permission in case of singlestorey builtup flats, however, PW7 is not having any knowledge as to who is the sanctioning authority of the said reconstruction. PW7 further admitted that there is no bye laws for regulation of illegal construction in EHS flats.

47. The DDA has made applicable MPD2021 in similar flats allotted in Janak Puri, therefore, on the ground of parity, plaintiff is entitled for the relief for considering the said flats under EHS scheme as plot. This fact has also been duly conveyed to the MCD that MCD may sanction the plan of the singlestorey flats as plots as per MPD2021 norms.

48. DW6 testified that once the expendable flats are converted into freehold flats DDA did not have any right there upon and it is no more concerned as to what the allottees did to an expandable flat as no rules of DDA are applicable to the said freehold flats.

49. The DDA is empowered to amalgamation of two units as per the provisions of the said Regulations.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.37 of 55

50. PW4 has testified that MPD2021 is applicable to the entire Delhi, however, same is not applicable to expandable housing, therefore, all the departments of DDA are trying to escape from their responsibility, whereas once the MPD2021 is enforced in Delhi, the same is applicable to the EHS flats in terms of gazette notification dated 07.02.2007 as per the own policy of DDA recommended by the Vice Chairman with regard to the singlestorey flats.

51. It is further the contention of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in as much as the defendant no.1 has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and the question of jurisdiction has been left open, otherwise also, none of the ground and issue pertaining to Section 31(C) of the DDA Act 1957, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The Section 43 of the DDA Act pertains to the fact that no court inferior to the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate shall try an offence punishable under this Act, as such this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

52. Per contra learned counsel for defendant no. 1 has relied upon judgments i.e. Federation of Railway Officers Association &Ors. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289, Balco Employees Union (regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333, and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & ors. (2019) 12 SCC 415 in order to contend that the MPD 2021 is applicable to the the EHS flats. The policy decision to be taken by DDA and this court has no power to issue directions to the CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.38 of 55 DDA/defendant no. 1 to apply the Clause 4.4.3 of the MPD2021 to the EHS flats.

53. It is further contended that EHS flats are covered by drawing as provided in connection B1 to B11 as contained in Ex. PW1/4, therefore, whatever the alternation/addition is to be done in the EHS flats by the allottee, he has to raise construction/alternation as per the drawings disclosed therein without getting any prior approval from the competent authority or DDA. He further submitted that in pre 2016 period, it was the prevalent rules/regulations as detailed in Ex. PW1/4 so far as addition/alteration construction of the EHS flats were applicable is concerned. However, after formulation of the Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi 2016 (incorporating Amendments upto 12th February 2020) and this document is admitted by both the parties and was exhibited as Ex. P1, the additions/alterations/construction of the EHS flats is to be regulated by this Regulation, 2016.

54. At the very outset, it may be noted that the law laid down in the above said judgment relied upon by learned counsel for defendant is not disputed and the sum and substance of the same is that the court cannot give direction to the Government regarding matters dealing with policy decision to be taken by Government. In Federation (supra) it has been observed as under :

"Even if we assume that there is force in the material placed by the petitioners that by forming new railway zones efficiency in the railway administration would not enhance, CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.39 of 55 the reasons given by the Government and material placed by them in support of forming new railway zones is no less or even more forceful. Further, when technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various views and all those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government, in deciding the matter, could it still be said that this Court should reexamine to interfere with the same. The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschew from considering irrelevant factors and act reasonably within the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same. Even on the test suggested by Dr. Pal we cannot travel outside this principle to sit in appeal on the decision of the Government."

Similarly, in Balco Employees (supra) it has been observed as under :

"In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the Courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgement of the experts who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the Court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself. "

55. Now the question arises as to whether the EHS flats are flats as per the definition provided by the rules and regulations of the DDA or the plot. In this regard it may be noted that plaintiff had raised the contention that the EHS flats are the plots in as much as they are having the following characteristics :

a. An independent house with ownership of land beneath the house. b. The allottee can build the house in phases as per the given plan. c. The allottee can use material and the techniques of their choice when allottee undertakes construction.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.40 of 55 d. The allottees gets the facility such as terraces, sometimes a balcony, Courtyard etc. at various levels e. The allottee can maintain the services on individual basis and can take better care of the house.

f. The allottee can improve the landscape by providing trees in front of their house.

g. The allottees are saved from the problem is likely to be created by other allottee as is the case in the multistoried apartments. h. The allottee is saved of rigors of procedure of sanction plan as defendant no.1 provides duly approved plan for future construction.

56. It may be noted that as per terms and conditions of the allotment of the EHS flats the provisions of the said Regulations, are applicable to the EHS flats and relevant portion of Ex. PW1/3 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the EHS1996 is reproduced as under :

"18. GENERAL i. Other temrs and conditions of allotment will remain the same as indicated in the D.D.A. (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968 "

A bare perusal of the said Regulations depicts that two premises namely 'dwelling unit' & 'flat' are defined therein, which are reproduced as under :

"2(15) "Dwelling Unit" means a building or apart thereof which is used or is intended to be used by a family for habitation.

XXXXX 2(17) "Flat" means a portion of building, which can be delineated with definite outline on plan which can be definitely marked on site, and which is dwelling unit;"

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.41 of 55 A bare perusal of the definition of 'dwelling unit' and 'flat' depicts that dwelling unit is a building or part of building, whereas a 'flat' is portion of building which can be delineated outline on plan. Therefore, even if, expandable houses can be held as 'dwelling unit' and not a 'flat' as per clause 2(17) of the said Regulations, by no stretch of imagination, the said EHS flats/houses can be held to be a 'plot' as per the rules and regulations framed by the DDA in this regard. Therefore, it can be inferred that EHS flats are plots, however, EHS flats are at the most 'dwelling unit'.

57. So far as the contention of the plaintiff that EHS flats are plots is concerned, suffice is to say that the contention appears to be attractive but the same is fallacious in as much as if the EHS flats had been the plots, the DDA would not have issued the drawing for raising construction/alterations in the said EHS flats, which are claimed to be plot by plaintiff. This fact is also further fortified from the fact that as per the contents of Ex. PW1/10, the condemnable items applicable in respect of the flats built up by DDA which lead to conclude that the EHS flats have never been termed as plots by DDA. The relevant portion of PW1/10 is reproduced as under:

"XXXXXX • ADDITION/ALTERATIONS PERMITTED WITH PRIOR INTIMATION/PERMISSION • Following additions/alterations can be carried out with prior intimation/permission of the concerned agency i.e DDA/ MCD as per the prescribed procedure:

• Interchange the possession of kitchen, bathroom and WC with proper connections subject to structure safety. To carry out this CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.42 of 55 interchange, all the allottees of one vertical stack will have to apply jointly to the concerned agency.

• Construction of bathroom and WC in the rear courtyard. • Covering of open terrace with sloping roofs up to 9' height with lightweight material e.g. Fibre glass / AC sheets/GI sheets with pipes and standard angle and selection etc. and she enclosing with glazing.

• Removal of original structure and reconstruction with due permission in the case of single storied buildup flats only subject to the satisfaction of building bye laws and prior approval of the local authority.

• ADDITIONAL COVERAGE PERMITTED WITH PRIOR PERMISSION • Covering of courtyard and floor level terraces is allowed subject to fulfilment of building bye laws and structural safety. In three or four storied flats the onus at approved shall have the right to cover the area available as a result of coverage of courtyard / terrorist of flowed below. In such cases the residents of DDA flats in the vertical stack served by the same staircase should give their consent and jointly apply for permission. • In two storied flats the allottees at first floor will have no right of construction about the courtyard by ground floor allottee. The upper floor allottee of two storied flat can use the roof terrace for extra coverage as permissible.

• A bare chassis on the roof terrace of the top touring in addition to move the is allowed. This was happy should preferably be adjoining to the immunity and equivalent to the size of the room below so that construction of the wall over is ensured a terrace level. This will be subject to the provision of access to the residents of the block for maintenance of water tank, plumbing system, fixing of TV/cable antennas etc."

A bare perusal of the contents of this document depicts that DDA has provided various terms and conditions for addition/alterations of the flats build by DDA.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.43 of 55

58. So far as the contention of the plaintiff that there can be amalgamation of the 'dwelling unit' in terms of Ex. PW1/11, is concerned the same is applicable to shop and these regulations shall apply to those schemes in which built up properties are to be disposed of by way of sale or hirepurchase as it clear from the heading of this document Ex. PW1/11, which is reproduced as under :

"Terms and conditions of tender for allotment of built up shop/office/kiosk on free hold basis under the Delhi Development Authority (Management Disposal of Housing Estate) regulations 1968"

Therefore, there can be no amalgamation of the dwelling unit under the said Regulations which is not applicable to EHS flats/dwelling units.

59. The contention of the plaintiff is that the clause 4.3.3 of MPD2021 is applicable to the EHS flats, but this contention appears to be attractive but the same is fallacious for the following reasons :

(i) It may also be relevant to mention here that as per Ex. PW1/13, MPD2001 was applicable to Delhi in terms of the notification dated 23.07.1998 and the modification as provided under this notification are applicable to the residential plots the relevant portion of Ex. PW1/13 is reproduced as under :

"Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) Notification, New Delhi dated 23rd Jul, 1998 Whereas the Unified Building Byelaws and consequential modifications to Master Plan for Delhi2021 (MPD2001) have been examined in detail by Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.44 of 55 Council recommendations made by the Committee set up under the Chairmanship of Prof. V.K. Malhotra.......

XXXXXXX Modification:

On page 150 (Right Hand Side) pf Gazette of the India dated 1.8.90 and in supersection of the Notification dated 15.05.95, the table and footnotes under residential plot plotted housing (001) are amended ......"

60. So is the case with MPD2021 which has been made applicable to Delhi in terms of the notification dated 12.08.2008 (Ex. PW1/15) and the same is also applicable to the plots/plotted housing and not to the flats EHS flats. The clause 4.4.3 of MPD2021 is reproduced as under:

"4.4.3 CONTROL FOR BUILDING/ BUILDINGS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL PREMISESA. Residential PlotPlotted Housing Maximum ground coverage, FAR, number of dwelling units for different size of residential plots shall be as per the following table.

......XXXXX".

61. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that DDA has already made the MPD2021 applicable to the EHS flats in Janak Puri, Delhi, it may be noted that the said letter dated 16.06.2008 whereby it is alleged that DDA has approved the applicability of MPD 2021 especially clause 4.4.3 is not proved as per law and furthermore, however even for the sake of arguments it is presumed to be proved, in the said letter it has been observed as under:

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.45 of 55 "Subject : Sanction of Building plans of 80 sq. yards single storey DDA flats, Janak Puri, File no. F2(8) HUPW/SA/WZ&D/08/DDA/48 Synopsis : Conveying DDA's decision to MCD regarding sanctioning of 80 sqyd single storey Dwelling Units in DDA 80 sqyd plotted development at Janak Puri as per MPD 2021 norms and the controls prepared earlier not applicable.

XXXXX Proposal : this is very old scheme where it is. Plots with single dwelling units were allotted. Considering the ground realities and the development control norms of MPD 2021, it is proposed that it may not be worthwhile to modify the standard plan and we may inform MCD to sanction the plans of these plots as per MPD 2021 norms and the type design prepared earlier are not applicable."

62. A bare perusal of the above said contents of this letter depicts that the said recommendations are subject to the approval from the screening committee and, thereafter, was conveyed to MCD through letter dated 24.07.2008. The plaintiff through letter dated 12.06.2016 informed DDA that MPD2021 has been made applicable to EHS flats in Janakpuri and the same proposal be applied for plaintiff's EHS flats and DDA through letter dated 28.07.2016 informed plaintiff that case of plaintiff for applicability of MPD2021 is being examined. Thereafter, the Director (Building) DDA sought the denotification of balance area of development area no. 171 of Dwarka , PhaseI, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.10.2016. However, the plaintiff neither proved these letters by summoning the record nor even put these letters, which are interse CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.46 of 55 correspondence between plaintiff and DDA to the DWs in their cross examination, therefore, through these documents it can be concluded that clause 4.4.3 of MPD21 was found applicable to EHS flats of plaintiff. As such this contention is hereby rejected.

63. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that DDA has not disclosed as to which are applicable to the reconstruction/alternation of the EHS flats, suffice is to say that PW6 in his deposition has deposed that scheme for addition/alternation implemented as per policy and procedure for addition/alternation in DDA flats approved by DDA and Ministry of Urban Development and sanction in terms of Ex. DW1/7 in respect of flat no. 1186 only, pocket 3, sector 19, Dwarka was given as per the policy and procedure for permission of the DDA flats.

64. It may also be noted that PW6 in his deposition admitted that addition/alternation in the EHS flats is to be done in terms of brochure Ex. PW1/4 along with Annexure B1 to B11 as well as the letter/instructions Ex. PW1/10. ld. counsel for defendant no. 1 has also not controverted that the construction/addition/alternation in the EHS flats is not to be done in terms of the contents of Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/10.

65. It may also be relevant to mention here that during the course of arguments counsel for defendant no. 1 has relied upon the CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.47 of 55 policy/building bye laws, Ex. P1, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :

"Where any building permit which has been issued by functioning authority before the commencement of these building bye laws and where construction is in progress and has not been completed within the specified period from the date of such permit, the said permission shall be deemed to be sanctioned under these bye laws and shall only be eligible for revalidation thereunder. Accordingly, where the validity of sanction has expired on construction has not commenced, construction shall be governed by the provisions of these building bye laws.

XXXXXX 1.7.2 building permit: no person shall elect, reerect or make addition/alterations in any building or cause the same to be done without, first obtaining a separate building permit for each such building from the sanctioning authority.

XXXXXXX 1.8 Grievance redressal Committee for Building Bye Laws In DDA and all the concerned local bodies to implement these building bye laws, there shall be a grievance redress committee for building bye laws which shall be headed by a senior officer of the sanctioning authority who shall receive complaints/difficulties/appeals and provide appropriate the redressal in a time bound manner. The above committee shall comprise of :

a. an officer of the concerned local body not below the level of Director/Sr.Architect/Superintendent Engineer or equivalent CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.48 of 55 b. a senior officer of DDA not below the level of Director/Sr. Architect or equivalent c. Three representative from the profession, one each from architecture, engineering and town planning, to be nominated by Lieutenant Governor of Delhi d. any other official/professional may be coopted if required this committee shall be considered by the Chief Executive/head of sanctioning authority and shall have a term of 3 years after which, it shall be reconstituted with a change of members. If the authority/local body so desires, some or all the members may continue."

66. A bare perusal of of the contents of these bye laws depict that before the year 2016, no sanction was required by the allottee for the alteration/construction of the EHS flats in as much as the allottees of EHS flats can raise the construction/alternation/modification as per the site plan of the maps detailed in Annexure B1 to B11 of Ex. PW1/4 and, if any such alternation/modification is found beyond permissible limits the same was condonable as per the terms and conditions of the document Ex. PW1/10.

67. It may be noted that the issues are framed as per the relief prayed for in prayer clause detailed in the plaint which are as under :

a. Declare MPD21 amended to date and future amendments applicable to plotted housing/regularised colonies to houses allotted under EHS1996 in PocketIII, Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi175 and CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.49 of 55 the development be in accordance to clause 4.4.3 of MPD21 amendment to date and/or b. Direct the defendants to formulate building bye laws for the occupants of the expandable houses in pocketIII, sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi keeping in view the aims and objectives of master MPD2021 and/or c. Direct the defendants to allow amalgamation of plots as applicable under Management and Disposal of Housing Estate Regulations, 1968.

d. Direct the defendants to allow 900 mm projection on both sides of the houses allotted under EHS1996 scheme and/or e. Direct the defendants to allow the coverage of the tapered area in front of khancha flat owners by the allottees /residents of such houses and amalgamation of khancha flat with adjoining flat/houses and/or f. Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the structures constructed as per MPD2021 amended to date and/or

68. So far as issue no. 1 is concerned same is pertaining to the declaration as contained in the prayer clause (a). In this regard, it may be noted that the plaintiff has sought declaration that MPD2021 with all future amendments be made applicable to the plotted houses under EHS scheme of plaintiff and development be in accordance with clause 4.3.3 of MPD2021. In this regard, suffice is to say that the plaintiff has led no evidence as to how the MPD2021 including its clause 4.4.3 is applicable to the EHS flats/dwelling units/alleged houses. Apart from that, plaintiff has also failed to lead any evidence that similarly situated EHS flats in Delhi has been given the benefit of MPD2021 including clause 4.4.3. In addition to it, it may be noted that it is the policy decision CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.50 of 55 as to how and in what circumstances MPD2021 be made applicable to the houses/flats/dwelling units. The amendments, if any, in such master plan has been carried out by DDA by following due process of law, therefore, no such directions by way of declaration, as sought for in prayer clause (a) can be given to the defendants as per the mandate of law laid down by the superior court that courts are not supposed to interfere with the policy decision of the Government. This issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

69. As far as issue no. 2 is concerned, the same pertains to the issuance of directions to the defendants to formulate building bye laws to the occupants of EHS flats owned by plaintiff, keeping in view the aims and objectives of MPD2021. In this regard it may be noted that as per the terms and conditions of EHS96 (Ex. PW1/4) the said EHS houses/flats were to be regulated by the said Regulations. Apart from that DDA has issued notification/document (Ex. PW1/10) which is mutatis mutandis applicable to the EHS flats/houses/dwelling units belonging to the plaintiff. DDA has also formulated the regulations Ex. P1 in the year 2016, through which sanction plan for alteration/construction/modification of houses/flats/dwelling is to be regulated, therefore, no such directions are required and can be issued as per law. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

70. Issue no. 3 pertains to the issuance of directions to the defendant to allow the amalgamation of the plots as applicable under CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.51 of 55 the said Regulation. In this regard, suffice is to say that under the said Regulations, flats/houses/dwelling units are not to be amalgamated and only kiosk/offices etc. as detailed in (Ex. PW1/11) can be amalgamated, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to seek any direction for amalgamation of the EHS flats under the said Regulations. This issue is also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

71. Plaintiff has sought issuance of directions to allow 900 mm projection on both sides of the houses allotted under EHS1996 scheme under issue no. 4. In this regard suffice is to say that, if above said projection is permissible under the said Regulations (Ex. PW1/13) and as per clause 18 of EHS1996 (Ex. PW1/3 & Ex. PW1/4) and the notification/directions (Ex. PW1/10), including document Ex. P1, plaintiff will be entitled to seek such modification/alteration of 900 mm projection on both sides of the EHS flats/houses/dwelling units. The DDA/defendants are directed to allow said 900 mm projection on both sides of the EHS flats/houses as per law. This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants

72. Under this issue no. 5, plaintiff has made two fold prayers namely, (i) issuance of directions to defendants to allow the coverage of tapered area in front of khancha flat owned by the allottee of EHS flats/houses/dwelling units. (ii) The second prayer is amalgamation of khancha flat with adjoining flats/houses/dwelling units. Whereas the first part i.e. (i) of issue no. 5 is concerned, needless to say that plaintiff, if found entitled for coverage of the tapered area in accordance with the CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.52 of 55 document Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/10, Ex. PW1/13 & Ex. P1, the plaintiff will be entitled to seek coverage of tapered area of Khancha flats owned by allottees of EHS1996 in terms of the abovesaid documents and defendant are directed to allow such coverage of tapered area, if permissible, under the above said notification/documents as per law.

73. So far as amalgamation of khancha flats, suffice is to say that on account of reasoning as stated under issue no. 3, flats/houses/dwelling units cannot be amalgamated in terms of Ex. PW1/11. This second part (ii) of issue no. 5 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

74. So far as issue no. 6 & 7 for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from demolition of the structures constructed as per MPD2021 is concerned, suffice is to say that as stated above the provisions of MPD2021 mutatis mutandis is not applicable to the EHS flats/houses/dwelling units etc. and show cause notice has been issued to the allottees of the EHS flats of plaintiff who have raised unauthorised construction. Therefore, the houses/flats/dwelling units which are found not conforming to the rules and regulations as detailed in Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/10, Ex. PW1/13, and Ex. P1 are to be demolished as per law. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to be granted blanket permanent injunction restraining defendants from demolition of the structure, which has not been raised as per the above said rules and regulations. Needless to say that MPD2021, if found applicable to the EHS flats/houses/dwelling units, the DDA will not demolish the said EHS CS no. 1916/2014 Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.53 of 55 flats of the plaintiff, if found constructed within permissible/condonable items as detailed in Ex. PW1/10. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any permanent injunction regarding applicability of MPD2021 as prayed for, however, he is entitled to permanent injunction in respect of the EHS flats found conforming to the rules, the said Regulations and under Ex. P1 and this issue is partly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. As far as Civil Court jurisdiction to entertain this suit is concerned, suffice is to say that plaintiff has sought declaration of his civil rights under Section 9 of CPC and no person provision has been pointed out by the defendants that jurisdiction of civil court jurisdiction is barred. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

75. At this stage ld. counsel for the plaintiff submitted that although the plaintiff has not proved the interse correspondence between plaintiff and defendants, which though in the judicial file, but has not proved as per law. The allottees of the EHS flats, Janak Puri has been given the benefit of MPD2021 including clause 4.4.3 and the representation made by the plaintiff is pending with DDA. The said fact has not been controverted by Sh. S.P.Agarwal, Director(Housing) and he failed to disclose as to whether the representation dated 12.06.2016 made by the plaintiff, which is under consideration with DDA, has been disposed of or not. In this regard suffice is to say that any such representation, if pending with DDA, may be disposed off by taking into consideration the fact whether MPD2021 including clause 4.4.3 has been made applicable to the flat owners of EHS96 situated in Janak Puri.

CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.54 of 55 Relief

76. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed as under:

(i) Defendant/DDA is directed to allow the 900 mm projection on both sides of the houses under the EHS1996 in terms of the document Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/10, Ex. PW1/13 & Ex. P1, as per law.

(ii) Defendant/DDA is directed to allow the allottees of the EHS flats of the plaintiff for coverage of the tappered area in front of Khancha flats in accordance with document Ex.

PW1/4, Ex. PW1/10, Ex. PW1/13 and Ex. P1.

(iii) Decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the allottees of the EHS flats of plaintiff not to demolish the construction raised therein, if the same is found permissible/condonable in terms of Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/10, Ex. PW1/13 & Ex. P1, Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly.

File be consigned to Record Room.

                                                        Digitally
                                                        signed by
                                         VIJAY          VIJAY KUMAR
Announced in the open court              KUMAR
                                                        DAHIYA
                                                        Date:
on 04th Day of March 2022                DAHIYA         2022.03.23
                                                        17:15:23
                                                        +0530
                                     (V.K. DAHIYA)
                         ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE01 (SOUTH WEST)
                         DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.




                                                                                 CS no. 1916/2014

Expandable Housing Welfare Society v. DDA & Ors.

Page no.55 of 55

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Expandable Housing Welfare Society ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 March, 2022